District Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.549/2021.
Date of Institution: 26.10.2021.
Date of Order: 11.01.2023.
1. Shailesh Gupta Son of Shri.Prem Chand Gupta Resident of Flat No. 18, HEWO Apartments, Sector 16A, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana)
2. Shweta Gupta Wife of Shri.Shailesh Gupta Resident of Flat No. 18, HEWO Apartments, Sector 16A, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana)
…….Complainants…..
Versus
1. BPTP Limited Registered Office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001 Through its authorised Officer
2. Countrywide Promotors Private Limited Registered Office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001 Through its authorized Officer
ALSO AT:
BPTP Limited, BPTP Next Door, Next Door Mall, Sector 76, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana) Through its authorised Officer.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: AmitArora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. AbhishekPareek, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant no. 1 Shailesh Gupta had purchased one plot admeasuring 250Sq. Yards at the Project in the name of 'Parklands' situated at Sector 76, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana) at the basic sale price of Rs. 21,25,000.00 (rupees twenty one lakh twenty five thousand only) bearing Plot No. Y1 - 7, Parklands, Sector 76, Faridabad whereas the complainant no. 2 was wife of complainant no. 1 and the conveyance deed is executed in the name of complainant no. 1 and 2 jointly.The subsequent to booking of the subject plot with the project Parkland' developed by the opposite party no. 1 and 2, the opposite party while confirming the booking of the subject plot in the name of complainant has allotted customer code No. BE- 26/131309 to the complainant. The opposite party no. 1 made the offer of possession vide letter dated 18-05-2013 and thereby offered the possession to the complainant subject to payment of amount mentioned in the statement of accounts cum invoice.In accordance to the amounts demanded in the statement of accounts cum invoice the complainant has duly deposited the entire amount so demanded from the complainant which the opposite party had duly received and acknowledged vide receipt no. 2013/1400006440 dated 14-06-2013. The opposite party has issued a separate invoice dated 18- 05-2013 along with the letter of offer of possession and raised a demand of Rs. 99,059 (rupees ninety nine thousand fifty nine only) towards administrative charges, maintenance charges from dated 18-06-02013 to 18-06-2014, maintenance security deposit, refundable contingency deposit and sinking fund whereas the complainant duly paid the amount of Rs. 99,059.004to the opposite party which the opposite party had received and acknowledged vide receipt no. 2013/1400004172 dated 14-06- 2013 whereas the opposite party had offered the physical possession on 04-02-2016 and the opposite party cannot charge administrative charges, maintenance charges from dated 18- 06-02013 to 18-06-2014, maintenance security deposit, refundable contingency deposit and sinking fund charges from the complainant without providing the actual physical possession to the complainant. The opposite party while receiving the amounts as demanded from the complainant issued the statement of account dated 14-06-2013 with regard to the amounts called from the complainant and so paid by the complainant towards the purchase of the plot in question bearing no. Y1-7, parklands, Sector 76, Faridabad.. As per the statement of accounts dated 14-06-2013 the opposite party had called an amount of Rs. 34,13,200.00 (Rupees thirty four lakh thirteen thousand two hundred only) from the complainant and the complainant had paid amount of Rs. 33,38,200.00 (Rupees thirty three lakh thirty eight thousand two hundred only) because the amount of Rs. 75,000.00 on account of Club membership fee was optional to the discretion of the complainant, so, the complainant opted not to deposit it untilthe area would be developed for residential purposes. Otherwise, the complainant had paid the entire amount so called by the opposite party. On 14-06-2013 the opposite party had asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (rupees two lakh only) on account of Stamp Duty Charges vide demand dated 14-06-2013 and accordingly the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00 on dated 14-06-2013. The opposite party had charged amount of Rs. 15,700.00 (rupees fifteen thousand seven hundred only) for conveyance deed charges which the complainant has also paid to the opposite party.The opposite party collected and received the amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00 for stamp duty charges along with Rs. 15,700.00 for conveyance deed charges on dated 14-06-2013 as demanded vide demand letter dated 18-05-2013 to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant whereas the opposite party despite of receiving the amount of Rs. 2,15,700.00 (2,00,000 + 15,700 - 2,15,700.00) on 14-06-2013 executed the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant no. 1 and 2 on dated 13-01-2016 that was after a period of 02 years and 07 months which make it a crystal clear case of arbitrary acts and deficiency in services as the opposite party has illegally kept the amounts without the authority of law. The opposite party no. 1 and 2 collectively executed the conveyance deed dated 13-01-2016 in favour of complainant no. 1 and 2 which was registered with the office of Sub-registrar Tigaon vide Deed No. 6813 dated 13-01-2016. The opposite party vide its letter dated 04-02-2016 confirmed and acknowledged the receipt of entire amount so called from the complainant and offered the physical possession of the subject plot on 04-02-2016, in this manner the records pertains to opposite party establish that the opposite party has received the entire amount on 14-06-2013 and retained the amount unlawfully till January 2016. Therefore, the acts of the opposite party entitle the complainant to get the interest @18% p.a. for the amount so retained by the opposite party for a period of 02 years 07 months. It a matter of fact and records that the opposite party has collected amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00 from the complainant for stamp duty charges but it reveals from the conveyance deed dated 13-01-2016 that the opposite party no. 1 and 2 has paid the stamp duty of Rs. 1,14,000.00 (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand only) and in the manner the opposite party had unlawfully charged, collected and received an excess amount of Rs. 86,000.00 from the complainant no. 1 and 2. Immediately at the time of execution of sale deed the complainant no. 1 raised his objection to the opposite party to which the opposite party assured the complainant to refund the amount of Rs. 86,000.00 within four months but the opposite party did not respond to the legitimate request of the complainant intentionally and deliberately just to cause unlawful loss to the complainant. Right from the day one the complainant approached the opposite party on various occasions at their registered office as well as their office situated at Faridabad but all such time the opposite party keep on adopting delayed tactics. The complainant submitted letter dated 29-05-2019 and raised his demand to refund the amount so charged by the opposite party in excess from the complainant arbitrarily and unlawfully.The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
i) allow the complaint of the complainant.
(ii) grant the relief in the nature of directions to the opposite party to award the claimed amounts as mentioned in para 3.10 hereinabove to the complaint on account of acute deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite party.
(iii) directions for removal of deficiency in service.
(iv) Any other relief in addition to the above to which the complainant is found or deemed entitled by this Hon'ble Forum may kindly also be granted to him.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant andit was admitted case that the Conveyance Deed was executed in favour of the complainants on 13.01.2016. It was stated that OPs issued "offer of possession letter dated 18.05.2013 whereby in terms of payment plan demand towards stamp duty charges, conveyance deed charges and interest payable by the Complainants were raised / demanded (within ambit of Application Form and endorsed Plot Buyer's Agreement - explained herein below). The Complainants after its complete satisfaction with respect to every aspect of the plot in question such as location, size, boundaries andsale consideration agreed and accepted the physical possession of the plot and got Conveyance Deed (via document no. 6813 dated 13.01.2016) executed in their favour respectively. Hence the alleged cause of action (if any) to file the present complaint against the OP's arose immediately on two occasions i... on 14.06.2013 and 13.01.2016. However, the present complaint has been filed on 26.10.2021 i.e. much beyond the expiry of the limitation period of 2 years from the date of alleged cause of action, if any. The complaint under reply was also liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Complainants have approached this Hon'ble Commission withclean hands and had not disclosed complete & relevant facts and documents which had a material bearing on the case. Complainants were subsequent allottees and, after conducting due diligence & out of their own volition in the year 2011. purchased allotment rights qua plot no. Y1-7/ Area (tentative) 250 sq, yards in the project "Parklands, Sector-76, Faridabad" from one 'Mrs. BeenaKumari ("Second Allottee") who purchased allotment rights from one "Mr. Lalit Kumar Mittal ("First Allottee") in the year 2009. On completion of all requisite documentary formalities and payment.. Complainants after reading and understanding of incorporated terms and conditions submitted fresh Application Form with the OPs and also, already executed PBA dated 19.05.2009 after reading. understanding, agreeing and accepting to documented clauses was endorsed in favour of the Complainants on 04.04.2011.Complainants had deliberately misrepresented before this Hon'ble Commission that OPs had charged and received an amount for conveyance deed charges of Rs.15.700 which were not at all chargeable from the Complainants. It is stated that in consonance to payment plan and clauses agreed and accepted by the Complainants (via Application Form as well as endorsed PBA) OPs issued 'offer of possession letter dated 18.05.2013 raising last demands from Complainants, one of which being "Conveyance Deed Registration Charges amounting to Rs.15,700/-. It was further stated that Complainants vide Clause-4 of the Application Form and Clause- 2.6 read along with Clause-18 of the PBA, agreed and undertook to make payment of registration charges to enable OPs to convey plot in question in favour of Complainants. OPs within strict ambit of agreed clauses raised demand towards conveyance deed registration charges, which as a matter of fact was communicated to Complainants at the beginning of transaction by both OPs as well asSecond Allottee, thus making said demand legal and his Complainants. It was submitted that due to certain reasons beyond the control of the OPs the process / registration of conveyance deed in favour of Complainants was delayed, in said regard OPS as a goodwill gesture offered to get conveyance deed executed on the basis of original sale price of the project (amounting to Rs.1.14,000/- as stated in conveyance deed) rather than on basis of Collector Rates, resulting in differential amount towards of stamp duty which was a bonafide and genuine act on part of OPs. It was stated that Complainants were duly informed about the same before and at time of execution of conveyance deed in their favour by representative of the OPS. Accordingly, Complainants after conducting their due diligence and being satisfied with each and every aspect related to concerned plot including but not limited to size, boundaries, sale consideration etc. It was stated that differential amount of Rs.86,000/- [Rs.2,00,000- (calculation on basis of Collector Rates) Rs.1.14,000/- (calculation on basis of original sale price)] towards stamp duty charges, OPs were ready and willing to refund the same, as the difference amount was lying in Complainants account due to bonafideact of the OPs hence, no interest component / liability raises upon OPS as same had not be disclosed by Complainants also in their complaint. Complainant also had misrepresented from this Hon'ble Commission that OPs had raised demand for enhanced external development charges ("EEDC") without providing any explanation qua such enhanced external charges and that OPs had charged an amount of Rs.47.500/- as interest on said amount. It was stated that OP had received demand notices from the Director General Town and Country Planning, Haryana (DGTCP) demanding enhanced EDC (EEDC) amounts from OP in accordance with Memo No. HUDA-CCF-ACTT-1-2011/17903 dated 25.05.2011 issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), in respect to the licenses granted by the Director Town Planning, Haryana (DTCP) in Faridabad w.e.f. 2005, wherein HUDA had revised the EDC rates from Rs. 18,19,000 lacs per gross acre to Rs.39,75,821 per gross acre which had been made applicable, retrospectively along-with interest. Subsequently, the cut-off date for charging of the interest in respect of the payment of the enhanced EDC in respect of the Licenses granted before 25.05.2011 was clarified vide memo dated 05.03.2012.OP raised demand towards EEDC vide demand letter dated 06.04.2012 payable while providing adequate explanation towards said demand. Complainants failed to make timely payment of said demand, evident from reminder letters issued by OP dated 31.05.2012, 28.11.2012 and 16.01.2013 and, on receipt of said reminders Complainants make payment towards EEDC on 01.02.2013. It was stated that due to delay in making payments i.e. 280 days, an interest amount of Rs.47,500/- was charged from the Complainants vide OOP letter dated 18.05.2013 and interest amount had been paid by Complainants on 14.06.2013 without any demur or protest. It was crystal clear to state that demand was raised on 06.04.2012 and paid on 01.02.2013, thus Complainants have approached this Hon'ble Commission on 26.10.2021 for sake of bringing life into his frivolous and fictitious complaint which is otherwise hopelessly barred by law of limitation. It was stated that Complainants via present complaint had alleged charges raised towards conveyance deed registration charges, stamp duty charges and interest on EEDC demand. It was pointed out that all said charges had been raised by OP strictly within ambit of the Application Form and duly endorsed PBA and, Complainants have made payment towards all said charges on 14.06.2013 without raising any demur or protest against of alleged charges. Later, on completion of documentary formalities and clearance of dues and after a detailed inspection of the said plot including not limited to its area, location, dimensions etc. & Complainants having no objection & was fully satisfied with the said plot agreed not to raise any dispute/issure against said plot at any time in future, accordingly Conveyance Deed bearing document no. 6813 dated 13.01.2016 got executed/registered in favour of the Complainants. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–BPTP Limited with the prayer to:i) allow the complaint of the complainant.(ii) grant the relief in the nature of directions to the opposite party to award the claimed amounts as mentioned in para 3.10 hereinabove to the complaint on account of acute deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite party.(iii) directions for removal of deficiency in service.(iv) Any other relief in addition to the above to which the complainant is found or deemed entitled by this Hon'ble Forum may kindly also be granted to him.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Shailesh Gupta, Ex.C-1(colly) letter dated 18.05.2013 regarding offer of possession, Ex.C-1(colly) – invoice, Ex.C-2 & 3 – receipts,, Ex.C4 –statement of account, Ex.c-5 – conveyance deed, ex.c-6 – letter dated 04.02.2016, ex.C-7 – letter dated 29.05.2019, Ex.C-8 – email, Ex.C-9 – letter dated August 06,2012, Rc.V-10 - mail dated 30.4.2012.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Jay Shankar , authorized representative of the opposite parties, Ex.R/1(colly) Resolution,, Ex.R/2- application for allotment by sale of residential plot in residential colony, Ex.R/3 – Endorsement Form,, Ex.R/4 – letter regarding charging of stamp duty from group Housing societies as well as between colonizers/HUDA,, Ex. R/5 (colly) – letter dated August 06,2012 regarding enhancement of external development charges in Faridabad, by government of Haryana vide memo NO. HUDA.CCF.ACCTT-1-2011/17903 dated May 25,2011 and Memo No. HUDA.CCF.accTt-1-2012/8211 dated March 5,2012.Ex.R/6 – receipt, Ex.R/7 – conveyance deed.
6. In this complaint, the offer of possession was issued on 18.05.2013 and BPMS invoice. CD bearing NO. 6813 dated 13.01.2016 was exected. Delay was at the end of the Company). Customer on 13.01.2016 write email alleging that company has demanded and received Rs.15,700/- conveyance deed charges and Rs.2,00,000/- towards stamp duty charges whereas in the CD stamp duty charges has been mentioned as Rs.1,14,000/-, thus seeking refund of the excess amount Rs.86,000/-. Also alleging that EEDC paid Rs.3,44,000/- + interest Rs.47,500/- (Total Rs.3,91,500/-), since EEDC case is still under dispute, seeking refund of said amount and ready to submit BG for the same. Company vide email dated 12.07.2018 duly acknowledged that there is an excess of Rs.101,329/- in BPTP a/c. thus requesting customer to given consent to transfer excess amount in BPTP to BPMS, against which customer is rigid for seeking refund. Prayer: A. Refund excess amount Rs.86,000/- (stamp duty) & Rs.15,700/- (conveyance deed charges) alongwith interest 18% till realization. B. Refund amount lawfully charged towards interest Rs.47,500/-. C. Amount of interest on Rs.6,08,200/- (receipt dated 14.06.2013) i.e. Rs.2,82,813/- retained unlawfully from 14.06.2013 till 13.01.2016(date of CD). D. Amount of interest on Rs.99,059/- (receipt dated 14.06.2013) i.e. Rs.1,48,588/- retained unlawfully from 14.06.2013 till 25.10.2021. E. Compensation Rs.1,00,000/-.
7. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount, subject to getting N.O.C from BPMS who is not impleaded as a party in this case.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 11.01.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
